Re: [abc] PLDI paper

On Sat, Apr 09, 2005 at 08:35:32PM +0200, Damien Sereni wrote:
> > 8) Damien mentioned a variation of our inter-proc algorithm ... Damien ...
> > what was it - something about not needed something on "all paths"?
>
> I just noticed in chicago that the condition for setting a cflow
> residue to alwaysMatch is stronger than it needs to be -
>
> what i would expect would be
> a query shadow qsh is statically true if for every interprocedural
> path p to qsh there is an update shadow in p
> [where an interprocedural path includes calls but not returns]
>
> whereas the condition that there is an update shadow sh such that qsh
> is in mustCflow(sh) is equivalent to :
> every interprocedural path p to qsh goes through sh [ie all paths must
> go through the same shadow]
>
> (please check that i haven't made some mistake along the way!)
>
> I guess the mustCflow version is probably easier / more efficient to
> compute, but maybe we should mention the other one (of course, the
> benchmarks show the mustCflow is precise enough)

I've updated the discussion of mustcflow in the paper to match the
code (which implements the improved condition which Damien describes
above) and checked it in. I'd appreciate it if someone had a look at the
discussions of mustcflow to make sure that they make sense.

Ondrej

>
> Cheers,
> Damien
>
Received on Tue Apr 12 17:46:33 2005